Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that for a fixed lens camera 35mm would be the most perfect, most classic and most versatile focal length. But the Q isn't simply a "fixed lens camera". The crop possibly is an intended, built-in feature, and while one can easily crop from 28 to 35 mm, it's not possible the other way.

So a 35mm Q could of course be (even) great(er) for 35mm and up, but it would lack 28mm, which is also an important and popular focal length.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[evikne]

36 minutes ago, Steven said:

btw, you’re a 35 lover if I recall ? How’s you KOB doing ?! Still in love ? 

I assume that KOB means "King of Bokeh"? For the second time (!) I've traded it for a 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. One of the reasons was that I also have the 35 FLE, and I want the two lenses to be "as far from each other" as possible in terms of rendering.

And yes, I am a 35 and 50 mm shooter. So I should keep out from the Q forum anyway. 😉

[Stephen.s1]

While we're dreaming...my wish for the perfect Q (Q3) would be a full articulating viewing screen.  The rest of the camera is perfect!

[Stephen.s1]

Steven, a tilt-up screen is always good for low angle shots.  But does nothing for the overhead camera hold.  (while we're wishing... <grin>)

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, PhotoCruiser said:

Please explain me what is the big difference between a 28mm and a 35mm lens, except that the 28mm capture more field of view?

Chris

I can only speak for myself but my people pics always look distorted and obviously wide angle with a 28mm lens but look just fine with a 35mm.

Even with scenic pics i prefer 21/25 or 35mm to a 28mm.

Its probably all my fault but my point is that if you like and use 28mm lots then the Q makes great sense but otherwise its not suitable.

[jaapv]

Correct,  only it is not optical distortion but a normal change in perspective . If you were to get as close with a 35 you would get the same "distortion" (but obviously tighter framing)

You can get the same effect by moving in close with your eyes.

BTW, what is "cinematic look" ??

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Stephen.s1 said:

While we're dreaming...my wish for the perfect Q (Q3) would be a full articulating viewing screen.  The rest of the camera is perfect!

You do realize that this would add at least 2-3 mm to the thickness of the camera?

[evikne]

41 minutes ago, Steven said:

Mmmm I thought this term (which I don't like, coming from the film industry) was very popular nowadays. Thats why I used it. 

I believe the number one criteria when calling a shot cinematic is shallow DOF. But other factors come into play, such as no distortion, compressed background, character and flares, atmosphere and drama in general. A 35 is usually more "cinematic" than a 28. The longer, the more cinematic. 

Except this term is completely stupid, IMO, because some very cinematic films have been shot on fisheye lenses. Some brilliant films have been shot on all kinds of lenses, with all kinds of characters. 

The last film I produced, actually, is shot on a 25mm Cooke lens, on a tripod the entire movie. Not one move. Only 60 cuts during the whole 2 hours. 

To me, cinematic look is mostly wide angle combined with shallow DOF, as here with the 35 FLE. But as you say, it can be practically anything.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest Nowhereman]

jaapv asked a good question and the answer seems to be that "cinematic" is a useless term, unless its precisely defined when used. As far as I am concerned, the term "organic", when used for a photograph, is equally meaningless: usually, I've seen it used to apply to a digital image that looks like it's been shot on film. But I find nothing organic about the physical substance of film or the chemicals used in the developer. Now, if you were developing in caffenol...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[evikne]

28 minutes ago, Steven said:

I suppose we can also add, for the sake of the conversation in the thread, that the shot that you just posted could be taken with any lens. If you stepped back a little and shot it with a 50 1.4, it would look even more cinematic. Step a little more and shoot with a 90 2.0, you have a cinematic orgasm. 

Yes, tele lenses cropped to a panoramic aspect ratio can give a very cool effect. 

That also means that the picture's aspect ratio is important for a cinematic look, more important than the focal length. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by evikne

[jaapv]

45 minutes ago, Steven said:

Yep, that’s a cinematic shot. 

I suppose a cinematic shot is one that looks like a movie still. 

And how does a movie still look different from a "photographic" (I suppose that is the opposite ? ) shot?  This is simply a nice shot that could have been taken with any camera and lens that shows a moderately shallow DOF However, it has a rather centric composition - the girl should have been slightly to the right and it should have been framed lower to avoid the horizontal colour transient  right through the middle. Maybe cinematic means sloppily composed? . If anything, the term  "cinematic" shot  gives me the impression of a photograph that moves, a bit like the Live function on the iPhone.

[jaapv]

Couldn't any photograph have been taken out of a film?  Let's leave  "trending" Hipster-slang off this forum.

I took this definition from F-Stoppers:

Quote

 good non-flat lighting, tasteful color grading, composition, and, most importantly, story that is being told

There is not one thing there that does not apply to a photographic image. I call the Emperor's Clothes.

[Guest Nowhereman]

^ Okay, RIP "cinematic". Now, how about "organic", which I raised above?
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited November 23, 2020 by Nowhereman

[Daedalus2000]

5 hours ago, Steven said:

 

The last film I produced, actually, is shot on a 25mm Cooke lens, on a tripod the entire movie. Not one move. Only 60 cuts during the whole 2 hours. 

On what sensor was that shot? And do you have any link to your work? Thanks

[Daedalus2000]

22 minutes ago, Steven said:

35mm Arri camera (Kodak vision 3). 

This film is not out yet, it's still in festival. But it will be available soon! We won Cannes, Toronto, San Sebastien, and we also screened in New York film festival... 

I see, many congratulations! If there is any other place (apart from IG) where one can see your work please let me know.

All the best

[Guest]

I love the old portraits of film stars from yesteryear  taken with continuous lighting in black and white.

They had that cinematic look.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

show us ! 

Ha ha,I wasnt about when they were the fashion but i believe some modern photographers partly go for that  that look.

[Dr. G]

I just came back to this thread and read through the comments.  The persepctive distortion I was discussing was for similar framing as illustrated in the video below.  

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Dr. G

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[huwm]

In response to thread title,

it doesn’t, get over it.

[Q2ER]

Sorry for bringing up this old tread in my first post. 
 

I was choosing between X100V and the Q2. I tried the X100V hoping to get a good feeling for it but never liked the Fuji files. I did enjoy the 35mm for fun shooting at home with the family and more flattering portraits.
(But I wouldn’t want to exchange the 28mm for it.)
 

But correct me if I get this discussion wrong is the 35mm crop on the Q2 pretty much exactly the same eqv as the X100V 35mm f2.0?? 
When it comes to perspective it should be I guess but also in dof and background compression??
 

Thanks for answering a new Q2 owner a very happy one it’s wonderful camera. But if this is correct I’m even more happy with picking up the Q2 instead of the X100V (Even with the price difference)